I hate to bring this up, but the numbers of dead caused by the Hiroshima bomb keeps changing too. Does that mean it never happened? What about the plague during Justinian's reign? They just updated that not too long ago. The revolutionary war? Vietnam?

The Orthodox martyrs in the Soviet union gets changed too. Does that mean it's made up?

Updates do not equal deception.

PP

Well said!

All such events will be better understood as time goes by. If some new calculation says 6 million deaths vs 5.7 ( or vice versa), that is entirely possible.

But to say it never happened or to put forward numbers like 200,00 to 300,00 deaths are extraordinarily unlikely to be credible based on the volumes of evidence already in hand and well understood.

Or to use words like "unrealistic" or "incredible" without defining what that means in the context of the discussion and without referencing sources, and without establishing what exactly *is* realistic and credible is, at the very best, extremely lame, and no argument at all.

Credible evidence is evidence that holds up under rigorous scrutiny.

Holocaust Denial theories have been labeled as "Academic Fraud" by such leading organizations as the "American Historical Association". That position is consistent within the entirety of top level historical scholarship.

Therefore, on the face of it, it appears that Holocaust Denial theories are to date, not credible and so much so that they are actually termed as " "Fraud" which is an extreme characterization for professional scholars to use.

Again, have you done any research on your own? Or would you rather just continue to trot out that old canard, "All serious scholars say it. I believe it. That settles it!" You really have a weak argument if all you can do is appeal to the consensus of "experts".

Yeah, because what do the overwhelming majority of historians really know? And the survivors? And the people who liberated the camps? And the testimony from Nuremberg? We all know angry people on the Internet are a better source.

Yeah, because what do the overwhelming majority of historians really know? And the survivors? And the people who liberated the camps? And the testimony from Nuremberg? We all know angry people on the Internet are a better source.

Do you realize how inconsistent some of those stories are? You have some people who actually saw the horrors of the camps near the end of war (piles of bodies, dead to either typhus or starvation), some who are complete frauds (like Irene Zisblatt who claims to have escaped from inside a gas chamber, as well having her tattoo removed by Dr. Mengele), and people who have oddly different experiences never well publicized*

*Shall we discuss the people who spoke of camp cantinas, play productions, orchestral arrangements, etc.?

If anyone is interested, I would recommend the documentary : The Last Days of the Big Lie - which is a complete refutation of Steven Spielbuck's film The Last Days.

This is just the usual bunk that everyone has been fed. Just skimming, I noticed a glaring contradiction between various holocaust stories :

"...At the height of the deportations, up to 6,000 Jews were gassed each day at Auschwitz."

One of the chief historians on Auschwitz, Franciszek Piper, has stated that the homicidal gas chambers were used no more than 30 minutes a day. How in the world did they manage to fit 6000 people in one gas chamber? More importantly, if Zyclon B was used at Auschwitz, then why is there no Prussian blue staining as there is in the delousing chambers?

I thought the gas chambers werent used? So if that is so how can you use the Auchwitz historian's quote? Would he be an unreliable source for you?

PP

PP--You can't argue with idiocy. Einstein, that very famous Jew, once said something to the effect of "There are 2 things that are infinite, the universe and human ignorance, and I'm not sure about the first." He also said that "It's harder to crack prejudice than an atom". Ioannis Climacus, who seems to revel in the evil of triumphalism by his own admission, is just proving the truth of those 2 statements.

With that, I am done with this.

Good move.. It's not a good idea to give crazy hateful people a platform to spew from..

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Yeah, somebody made a film! And put it on the Interwebs! That's got to make it true!

(goes all googly-eyed)

There is a thing called pseudohistory. That's what Holocaust doubting is.

Do you realize how loony this all sounds, and if you had the nerve to spout this b.s. in public, you'd be laughed out of the room?

I love this idea that "if you can't post an entire history thesis in five seconds, that means my crackpot theory is true by default." When did that become a sound principal of research?

There are no sane or decent Holocaust deniers. None.

I don't care how many other roaches are crawling around when you switch on the light. They're still just roaches. Just because you can find a few other fringe types who have the same problem, doesn't make them any less of fringe wackaloons.

There is a thing called pseudohistory. That's what Holocaust doubting is.

Doubting things is quite historical. Do you realize the sheer number of things that have previously been believed in human history, only to later be proven wrong by a "doubter"? The idea that the Holocaust is somehow an unquestionable dogma is both anti-historic and anti-intellectual.

Do you realize how loony this all sounds, and if you had the nerve to spout this b.s. in public, you'd be laughed out of the room?

I have spoke about this in public and achieved mixed results. Some people got upset and some got angry. Others, however, with open minds, were able to objectively examine the evidence and realize how absurd this atrocity myth really is.

Usually it takes more than arguing that the Holocaust numbers are slightly high for most people to use the anti-Semitism card.

My word, you are totally wrong. We have some people on this very thread who do it.

Some of us look at context and past posts, too.

I have yet to see any reason to use the anti-semitic card here. I know that I am not, Ioannis Climacus is not, and Peter the Aleut is not. You, nor them, have any reason to throw that cliche term around.

Time to leave--Ioannis (who claims others have proven nothing but refuses himself to prove and back up his own point of view with credible, referenced, documented evidence), and celticfan, enjoy wallowing in your own blind stupidity, pride, and disgusting prejudice, over which I am sure the demons are absolutely joyful. Bye bye.

I'm pretty sure you are fully of pride, from the way you are acting AMIGO. How are we prejudice? I'd love to hear this, because we both believe all mean are created equal.

Time to leave--Ioannis (who claims others have proven nothing but refuses himself to prove and back up his own point of view with credible, referenced, documented evidence), and celticfan, enjoy wallowing in your own blind stupidity, pride, and disgusting prejudice, over which I am sure the demons are absolutely joyful. Bye bye.

I'm pretty sure you are fully of pride, from the way you are acting AMIGO. How are we prejudice? I'd love to hear this, because we both believe all mean are created equal.

Time to leave--Ioannis (who claims others have proven nothing but refuses himself to prove and back up his own point of view with credible, referenced, documented evidence), and celticfan, enjoy wallowing in your own blind stupidity, pride, and disgusting prejudice, over which I am sure the demons are absolutely joyful. Bye bye.

I'm pretty sure you are fully of pride, from the way you are acting AMIGO. How are we prejudice? I'd love to hear this, because we both believe all mean are created equal.

Time to leave--Ioannis (who claims others have proven nothing but refuses himself to prove and back up his own point of view with credible, referenced, documented evidence), and celticfan, enjoy wallowing in your own blind stupidity, pride, and disgusting prejudice, over which I am sure the demons are absolutely joyful. Bye bye.

I'm pretty sure you are fully of pride, from the way you are acting AMIGO. How are we prejudice? I'd love to hear this, because we both believe all mean are created equal.

As is evident of your past trolling, I doubt you are seriously interested in what I think. I suspect you have already created a strawman of my views - a viewpoint which you are quite content in keeping.

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

Time to leave--Ioannis (who claims others have proven nothing but refuses himself to prove and back up his own point of view with credible, referenced, documented evidence), and celticfan, enjoy wallowing in your own blind stupidity, pride, and disgusting prejudice, over which I am sure the demons are absolutely joyful. Bye bye.

I'm pretty sure you are fully of pride, from the way you are acting AMIGO. How are we prejudice? I'd love to hear this, because we both believe all mean are created equal.

As is evident of your past trolling, I doubt you are seriously interested in what I think. I suspect you have already created a strawman of my views - a viewpoint which you are quite content in keeping.

Time to leave--Ioannis (who claims others have proven nothing but refuses himself to prove and back up his own point of view with credible, referenced, documented evidence), and celticfan, enjoy wallowing in your own blind stupidity, pride, and disgusting prejudice, over which I am sure the demons are absolutely joyful. Bye bye.

I'm pretty sure you are fully of pride, from the way you are acting AMIGO. How are we prejudice? I'd love to hear this, because we both believe all mean are created equal.

As is evident of your past trolling, I doubt you are seriously interested in what I think. I suspect you have already created a strawman of my views - a viewpoint which you are quite content in keeping.

I thought you would be evasive. That's fine. Evasiveness says plenty.

Says plenty? Plenty about what? If you were sincere in your methods, I would be more than happy to share my views. Instead, you are concerned with justifying your ridiculous conspiracy theories involving a covert "neo-Nazi" (whatever that is) cabal on OC.net.

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

I now understand. We have another Alfred Persson on our hands. Someone who asks for proof and when it is given he discards it out-of-hand and ignores direct questions with the usual dull platitudes. Im done. Spew whatever you want. You think the the Holocaust is a big lie fine. You think the numbers exaggerated, good for you. Be my guest. You want to use your "proof" from a youtube video or cherry-pick your "proff" good job. Alien anal probes are on youtube too. Start a thread about that too.

You think Im wrong for my opinion and I think you're wrong with yours.

You believe this is all some major conspiracy then fine Im sure you and Dan Brown will get along famously.

Now you can respond and feel like you won because I wont respond back. Enjoy your chest puff. Im gettin a drink.

PP

« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 10:44:24 AM by primuspilus »

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

As is evident of your past trolling, I doubt you are seriously interested in what I think. I suspect you have already created a strawman of my views - a viewpoint which you are quite content in keeping.

Wait, I want to hear how Iconodule is an evil troll. We need to get off of this Jew stuff for a moment.

Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.--"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18--I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --Life went on no matter who was wrong or right

I now understand. We have another Alfred Persson on our hands. Someone who asks for proof and when it is given he discards it out-of-hand and ignores direct questions with the usual dull platitudes.

Really? I have refuted every bit of "evidence" you (or anyone else) has provided. When I in turn asked my own questions, I was either ignored or told no credible historian would ever question it. If anyone, it is you who have dismissed evidence.

Also, if you are still interested, here is a "scholarly", non-"revisionist" article from the German Studies Review that thoroughly explains the presence of human fats in soap bars. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27667954?seq=1 No spooky Nazi soap factories here.

Now you can respond and feel like you won because I wont respond back. Enjoy your chest puff. Im gettin a drink.

PP

Won? Do you suppose this is some sort of grade school competition? "Winning" a debate is an entirely subjective matter, and a meaningless distinction in my opinion. Time after time, Holocaust supporters spout out the same easily refutable evidence, but yet can never provide answers to the seemingly endless list of contradictions. I don't expect to "win" anyone over in this debate, but I aim at encouraging people to examine the evidence for themselves (and not eat the processed propaganda fed to them by the media).

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

As is evident of your past trolling, I doubt you are seriously interested in what I think. I suspect you have already created a strawman of my views - a viewpoint which you are quite content in keeping.

Wait, I want to hear how Iconodule is an evil troll. We need to get off of this Jew stuff for a moment.

Hey, those are your words, not mine. I don't think Iconodule is an "evil troll", I am sure he is a great guy (albeit misguided). Certain past activities of his, however, are prime examples of trolling. Here, he accuses people of being "Nazi's" when no one has advocated such a philosophy (much less claimed the title). It is a cliche term meant as an inflammatory gesture. Such words stifle any intelligent discussion.

As an eminently respectable person, I would like to ensure that I share the beliefs of all right-thinking people on this issue, and avoid being (or being seen as) a despised denier/crazy/evil Nazi etc.

With this in mind, could someone tell me exactly what it is I am supposed to believe in order to escape such approbation? I'm afraid 'the Holocaust' is a little vague. I mean, I can mouth the words 'I believe in the Holocaust' if that's all that's required. But surely there is more substance to this creed?

So, in order to remain a respectable figure, and avoid being mistaken for a 'Holocaust denier'...

- what is the minimum number of Jewish deaths in German camps 1939-1945 that I must believe in?- what is the minimum number of Jewish deaths due to deliberate extermination in German camps 1939-1945 that I must believe in?- what is the minimum number of Jewish deaths due to deliberate extermination by Zyklon B poisoning in German camps 1939-1945 that I must believe in?- in which locations must I believe that extermination by Zyklon B poisoning was carried out?- are there any particular individuals whose deaths by deliberate Zyklon B poisoning I must believe in?- are there any other events that constitute 'the Holocaust', which I must believe in?

I look forward to a clear response from those familiar with the boundaries of respectable opinion - a quality which, surely, is of greater importance even than truth, in the discussion of historical questions. Thank you.

As an eminently respectable person, I would like to ensure that I share the beliefs of all right-thinking people on this issue, and avoid being (or being seen as) a despised denier/crazy/evil Nazi etc.

With this in mind, could someone tell me exactly what it is I am supposed to believe in order to escape such approbation? I'm afraid 'the Holocaust' is a little vague. I mean, I can mouth the words 'I believe in the Holocaust' if that's all that's required. But surely there is more substance to this creed?

So, in order to remain a respectable figure, and avoid being mistaken for a 'Holocaust denier'...

- what is the minimum number of Jewish deaths in German camps 1939-1945 that I must believe in?- what is the minimum number of Jewish deaths due to deliberate extermination in German camps 1939-1945 that I must believe in?- what is the minimum number of Jewish deaths due to deliberate extermination by Zyklon B poisoning in German camps 1939-1945 that I must believe in?- in which locations must I believe that extermination by Zyklon B poisoning was carried out?- are there any particular individuals whose deaths by deliberate Zyklon B poisoning I must believe in?- are there any other events that constitute 'the Holocaust', which I must believe in?

I look forward to a clear response from those familiar with the boundaries of respectable opinion - a quality which, surely, is of greater importance even than truth, in the discussion of historical questions. Thank you.

It really depends as there is no universal consensus. Which groups and/or individuals are you trying to impress and/or convince?

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

As an eminently respectable person, I would like to ensure that I share the beliefs of all right-thinking people on this issue, and avoid being (or being seen as) a despised denier/crazy/evil Nazi etc.

With this in mind, could someone tell me exactly what it is I am supposed to believe in order to escape such approbation? I'm afraid 'the Holocaust' is a little vague. I mean, I can mouth the words 'I believe in the Holocaust' if that's all that's required. But surely there is more substance to this creed?

So, in order to remain a respectable figure, and avoid being mistaken for a 'Holocaust denier'...

- what is the minimum number of Jewish deaths in German camps 1939-1945 that I must believe in?- what is the minimum number of Jewish deaths due to deliberate extermination in German camps 1939-1945 that I must believe in?- what is the minimum number of Jewish deaths due to deliberate extermination by Zyklon B poisoning in German camps 1939-1945 that I must believe in?- in which locations must I believe that extermination by Zyklon B poisoning was carried out?- are there any particular individuals whose deaths by deliberate Zyklon B poisoning I must believe in?- are there any other events that constitute 'the Holocaust', which I must believe in?

I look forward to a clear response from those familiar with the boundaries of respectable opinion - a quality which, surely, is of greater importance even than truth, in the discussion of historical questions. Thank you.

Here are two introductory articles. They both have a list at the bottom for further reading and many related links if you desire to read more detailed analysis.

ROME (CNS) -- The Second Vatican Council's teaching, particularly on Judaism and other religions, is rooted in traditional Christian theology and the Bible, and the Catholic Church should not offer concessions to those who do not accept its teaching, said an Israeli-born Franciscan who serves as a judge on a top Vatican court.

Msgr. David Jaeger, a judge at the Roman Rota, defined as worrying a tendency, "here and there in Catholicism, to look leniently upon stray groups that are marginal but well-publicized who denounce the doctrine of the council, including the declaration Nostra Aetate" on the relationship of the church to non-Christian religions....."While often presented as if it were absolutely new," he said, the teaching of Nostra Aetate "perfectly corresponds to the most ancient intuitions of Christian theology" when it affirms "there can be, and in particular cases, are elements of truth and holiness" in other religions, he said. In addition, the document emphasized that Judaism has a special status, which "already was extensively explained by St. Paul, particularly in the Epistle to the Romans."

The council's document explained the church's "doctrine on Judaism, the only religion which, while not knowing Christ, has its origins in biblical revelation, which is why the church does not regard it simply as a 'non-Christian religion,' but ascribes to it a unique status," Msgr. Jaeger said.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.